UMARPREET SINGH URF LADI vs State — 153/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Refused on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: RJSG010004542026

Filing Number

368/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

153/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Court

DJ ADJ Shri Ganganagar District HQ

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Refused

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

386

Police Station

Kotwali Police Station,Sri Ganganagar

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UMARPREET SINGH URF LADI

    Adv. Ved parkash Narang

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: UMARPREET SINGH URF LADI v. STATE (Case 153/2026) The court rejected the petitioner's bail application filed under Section 483 CrPC. The petitioner, Umarpreet Singh (age 20), was charged under IPC Sections 308(5), 111(2)(b), 118(1), and 61(2)(a) in connection with an incident on September 3, 2025, involving a shop explosion that allegedly caused injuries. The court found the petitioner's statements contradictory, determined that prima facie evidence supported the charges, and held that bail was not warranted given the serious nature of the offenses and lack of adequate justification for release. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 153/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: UMARPREET SINGH URF LADI v. STATE (Case 153/2026) The court rejected the petitioner's bail application filed under Section 483 CrPC. The petitioner, Umarpreet Singh (age 20), was charged under IPC Sections 308(5), 111(2)(b), 118(1), and 61(2)(a) in connection with an incident on September 3, 2025, involving a shop explosion that allegedly caused injuries. The court found the petitioner's statements contradictory, determined that prima facie evidence supported the charges, and held that bail was not warranted given the serious nature of the offenses and lack of adequate justification for release. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case